Views » October 4, 2012

Express Yourself, But Vote

The American Left has done itself a disservice by pursuing a politics of self-expression over strategic thinking.

Every four years, two political spectacles present themselves. One is the electoral contest for the White House. The other is a chorus of critics that tells all who will listen that the Democrat is not worthy of our vote.

Take, for example, Donnie Box, a member of the steelworkers’ union who appeared in an anti-Romney TV ad, but also explained to In These Times staff writer Mike Elk that he won’t be voting for Obama because the president “is a jerk, a pantywaist, a lightweight, a blowhard,” who “hasn’t done a goddamn thing that he said he would do.” (Elk’s story, published on our workers’ rights blog Working InThese Times, is one of the most-read articles on InTheseTimes.com.)

And every four years, we argue in these pages that the upcoming presidential election will have a profound impact on the lives of many people—immigrants, the poor, union workers, the unemployed, women and the uninsured. And yes, this year the Democratic ticket may not be perfect, but, like life, it is much better than the alternative.

In this issue, political consultant Vic Fingerhut advises Democrats that to win in November, they must craft a populist economic message that resonates with Independents, the most critical—and, research shows, the most uninformed—bloc of voters. The Party of the Ass sounded some encouraging economic populist notes at its convention in Charlotte. We’d like to hear more of that.

A Democratic victory also requires that those voters who supported the Democrats in 2008 do so again in November rather than stay home or support a third-party fantasy.

In electoral politics, this current has manifested itself as a tendency to view the ballot as a personal statement. Any number of tiny parties on the Left will be running presidential candidates in 2012; to vote for these parties is to “vote one’s conscience.”

But what if your ballot is not your voice? What if, in fact, your ballot is really just a small quantum of power, to be deployed strategically in concert with other like-minded persons? In the words of Carl Davidson, a former SDS leader who is a fan of Sanbonmatsu, “In the long run you need both self-expression and strategy. You need the inspiration that can be provided by self-expression, but you need a smart strategy that enables you to win.”

Davidson has been talking to steelworkers in his hometown of Pittsburgh, who like Donnie Box say that they won’t vote for Obama. “I tell them, ‘Sometimes you have to vote for who is going to do you the least harm.’ And that argument makes perfect sense to them.”

Of course, it could be worse. The Chicago-based anarchist group Revolutionaries for Romney is organizing under the (satiric?) slogan: “It needs to get worse before it gets better.” In 1933, anarchists in Spain believed the same thing. They urged people to boycott the congressional elections, arguing that the Right’s “victory will favor our plans.” It didn’t quite work out that way.

I agree about "But what if your ballot is not your voice? What if, in fact, your ballot is really just a small quantum of power, to be deployed strategically in concert with other like-minded persons?". And I couldn't see anything more strategic than Jill Stein's presidential campaign to secure Green Party ballot lines in more states, gain 5% of the vote to secure federal matching funds, and use its national exposure to build a real left alternative political organization at the local, regional, and state level.

The other premise of this article assumes the American "left" is large enough to swing the election as it stands now (which is something Carl and Bill both critiqued in their own piece supporting the president). There's no one decision, group of voters, or strategy that could be said to be decisive in the outcome of a presidential election, these events are "overdetermined". If one had to weigh the impacts of various actors or decisions, you would be hard pressed to put Jill Stein's campaign or Rocky Anderson's above in importance than the Obama campaign's own internal decisions.

At least the Progressive provided a platform for Greens and others to make their case along with arguments like the author's here.

What "Left" there is "has done itself a disservice by pursuing a politics of self-expression over strategic thinking". But it's not voting for third party candidates or staying home that's at issue. Its voting for and supporting Democratic politicians uncritically and placing unrealistic hopes and expectations on them. This is fantastical thinking at its worst.

I have a bias, that I have worked with Jill Stein. And she knows very well that a real strategy and set of tactics for progressive change involves dissent and forcing politicians to bend to popular agitation, not just saying "yes" as they attack you. I agree with the need for a progressive force in the Democratic Party, but if the arguments from this bloc mirror those of corporatists in the same, that anything outside the Democratic Party is foolhardy, I think the Left and the rest are in deep trouble.

Posted by Strategic Green on 2012-10-10 11:46:51

PAST 50 YEARS OF GOVERNMENT TO 2010-------------------------------R-------DYears in Presidency------28-----22Total jobs created--------24m---42mstock market return-----109%--992%return per annum--------2.7%---11%gdp growth per annum--2.7%---4.1%Income Growth annum-0.6%-----2.2%Sources-Dept of LaborBloomberg

Posted by Clarence Swinney on 2012-10-09 06:09:52

i'm not familiar with sanbonmatsu's work, but anyone who thinks gramsci's message in this situation would be "vote obama!" has not read gramsci. if we think of strategy as a long-term practice, then continuing to legitimize the rightward slide of the democratic party is anything but 'strategic.' voting third party may indeed be a 'fantasy,' but so is expecting the democrats to govern in a progressive manner. third parties are a fantasy in part because a lot of otherwise progressive voices do everything they can to convince potential third party voters to "be reasonable" and vote democratic every 4 years. being reasonable has given us a democratic president that took three years (and an upcoming election) to symbolically give lukewarm support to marriage equality, embraces fossil fuel extraction, has based his foreign policy (e.g. the NDAA) and trade policies (e.g. Trans Pacific Partnership) on neoconservative/neoliberal ideals, and puts elements of the safety net 'on the table' before 'negotiations' with republicans even begin.

Posted by jared on 2012-10-08 23:05:48

If the Democrats (or anyone else) want my vote, they must earn it. None of the Democratic federal-office candidates on my ballot -- Obama and the limo-liberals Feinstein and Pelosi - has done that.

Posted by Gino Rembetes on 2012-10-08 19:59:12

"Better" is a party whose leader has the power to have anyone killed at any time, with no review, due process, or oversight...with the same leader having and seeking permanent affirmation of the power to have any person held indefinitely by the military, again without review, due process, or oversight. That is your "Democratic Party." How can you call that "better"? You reduce the meaning of words to ashes.

This process of devolution--the degradation of politics--has been fully enabled by your "lesser-evil" faux realism over many elections. Year after year, election after election, you have endorsed candidates who have made matters steadily worse for our nation and world. That's what "evil" means, you know--things get worse.

Now we have a party and its leader who endorse life-and-death-and-freedom powers with no restraint. This is not academic, either--Dear Leader has already had at least two American citizens (and countless foreigners) put to death via this supreme power. And you can, without vomiting on yourselves, call this "better"?

Posted by Dravazed on 2012-10-07 17:43:49

Tom and Mike, have a deal. If Obama wins, you guys can blame me for it. But if Romney wins, I get to blame YOU GUYS for it. OK?

Posted by Carl Davidson on 2012-10-07 14:57:09

This election is about something greater that one president. It is about choosing a direction for the country. A republic, for which I chose to stand; or, a ruling corporate entity that doesn't know why we need National Parks or Public Broadcast Stations, or public schools or an Environment Protection Agency or a Consumer Protection Agency or the kind of healthcare and social security that democracies hold self evident. Is he for internet tiers - more money for greater and faster access? I would be surprised if he was not. So he would control porn access and content - anything else he feels strongly about? He likes the ideas of the economist, Milton; a hallmark, of which, is 'disburden our country of the poor'. In mexico this meant huge increases of the poor crossing over our borders. Where will our poor go? Canada?

Posted by zenspeak on 2012-10-04 23:30:45

Exactly. The idea that the left should make excuses for the assassin-in-chief makes a mockery of progressive values. When the author makes comments like "the Democratic Party ticket may not be perfect, but...", he is simply trying to whitewash the record of that party by putting the most positive possible spin on Obama's record. This sort of statement always comes from the pens and mouths of Democratic Party apologists as a way of diminishing the moral impact of what Obama and his corporate-Democratic friends of the corporate state have done. This comment that grudgingly admits that the Dems are "not perfect" implies that, hey, they are pretty good overall, and this kind of statement is simply a way of refusing to acknowledge the massive moral failures of a party that has actively pursued a vile agenda of assassinations, attacks on civil liberties, corporate pandering, attacks on the environment, and so forth. No progressive would ever have excused Bush's moral failings by saying, "oh well, he isn't perfect but...", and if a President McCain had done half the egregious things that Obama is doing, no self-described "progressive" would be saying that sort of thing about McCain, either.

This willingness to act as an apologist for the assassin-in-chief is an unfortunate failing in a lot of "progressive" commentary on this election.

Posted by mikesoul on 2012-10-04 17:29:14

So we should vote for the guy who has made it legal for the President to kill any of us, or throw us and anyone we love in a military brig forever with out a trial? Seriously?

Exactly how far does this guy have to go before should no longer consider voting for him?